As for the Turkish sub-forum, Turks and other Non-Armenian Members have probably opened more discussions about the Armenian Genocide, in that sub-forum, than is the case with Armenian members. Most of my comments in that forum are posted in threads opened by other members. And yes, I'm sure that Armenians have discussed other matters there in the Turkish Sub-Forum. For example, I posted a comment in the "Post the Turkish dishes you like" thread, quite a long time ago.

But, the Armenian tragedy, a century ago, does deserve our attention.

The battle for the spreading of the non scientific Armenian Slander, is the only reason for the existance of the modern puppet state of Armenia. Together with Greece, your only political strategy is to force the lies that the US and the UK is forcing you to defend. Did you ever read the historical report of Hovhannes Kajaznuni, the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia, about the "Armenian Slander" subject? If not, with a good intended approach, i really want you to read the following report written by Hovhannes Kajaznuni:

CONGRESS REPORT TO THE TASHNAK PARTY

Hovhannes Kajaznuni, or Hovhannes Katchaznouni (Armenian: Յովհաննէս Քաջազնունի) (1 February 1868 – 1938) was the first Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia from May 30, 1918 to May 28, 1919. He was a member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.

Hovhannes Kajaznuni, has submitted a report to the Congress of the Tashnaksütyun Party which was held in 1923 in Bucharest-Romania. In this report, Hovhannes Kajaznuni bravely tells the truth about what happened during and after the First World War.

The Summary of the Report of Hovhannes Kajaznuni is like this:

"The Tsar Russia, England and France DECEIVED us Armenians. They told us that they would give us a state reaching from a sea to another sea, and hereby they armed us(gave us weapons) and send us to the fire(to risk ourselves, to die for them, to kill innocent people for them, for what they promised us).

The Turks acted in the pupose of defending. Mutual massacres happened. We massacred the Muslim population.Guiltiness(The ones that did wrong) should not be sought outside of the Dashnak Party. In this case, htere is nothing left to do for the Dashnak Pary. The Dashnak Pary should dissolve itself."The remaining other Armenian statesmen did also write reports like this.

2015-07-07Interview by Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov on the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia

Question: On 16 June 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced its judgment (Merits) on the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia. At the outset, could you please provide some general background information on this case?

Elmar Mammadyarov: As you know, the case that you are referring to originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the ECHR on 6 April 2005 by six Azerbaijani nationals, who were forcibly expelled from the occupied Lachin district of Azerbaijan during the Armenian aggression. In essence, the applicants submitted to the Court that they were prevented from returning to their homes in the Lachin district and were thus unable to enjoy their properties located there due to continuing occupation of the district of Lachin by the armed forces of Armenia. They submitted that this amounted to continuing violations of their property rights, guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Convention that protects the right to respect for private and family life. They also submitted that there was a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that no effective remedy was available in respect of the above complaints. Finally, with a view to all complaints set out above, they complained that they were subjected to discrimination by virtue of ethnic origin and religious affiliation in violation of Article 14 of the Convention.

Question: What the general conclusion the Court has arrived at?

Elmar Mammadyarov: The Court ruled in favor of the applicants, recognizing continuing violations by Armenia of a number of their rights under the Convention. However, the importance of this ruling by an authoritative international court as this one goes beyond that.

Question: What is in view of the Republic of Azerbaijan the primary significance of this judgment by ECHR?

Elmar Mammadyarov: The judgment of the Court is indeed significant from a number of angles. First and foremost, ECHR effectively put an end to Armenia’s persistent denial of its responsibility for the unlawful occupation of and military presence in the territories of Azerbaijan. As is known, since the beginning of Armenian aggression and in the course of the Court’s proceedings in this case, in its usual attempts to mislead the international community and distort the root causes and essence of the conflict, the Republic of Armenia alleged that its jurisdiction did not extend to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories; that it did not and could not have effective control of or exercise any public power on those territories; that it had not participated in the military conflict in question; that it had not taken part in the seizure of the Lachin district and in any later military actions; and that it did not have any military presence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories.

The Court, having examined the evidence presented to it by the applicants and the Government of Azerbaijan rejected all these allegations submitted by Armenia.

Furthermore, in paragraphs 14-18 of the judgment, ECHR noted in particular, that the war had started with calls for the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia and specifically referred in that regard to a joint resolution on the “reunification” adopted in December 1989 by the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR and the Nagorno-Karabakh regional council. Essentially, the Court confirmed that Armenia’s territorial claims and its attempts aimed at annexation of a part of the territory of Azerbaijan were the root cause of this armed conflict and triggered a full-fledged war.

In paragraph 180, the Court also confirmed, and I am quoting the judgment here, that “the Republic of Armenia, through its military presence and the provision of military equipment and expertise, has been significantly involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from an early date”, that “[t]his military support has been – and continues to be – decisive for the conquest of and continued control over the territories in issue” and that “…the evidence … convincingly shows that the armed forces of Armenia and the ‘NKR’ are highly integrated”. Based on this and other evidence testifying to the political, financial and other dependence of the separatist entity from Armenia, the Court in paragraph 186 concluded that “… the Republic of Armenia, from the early days of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has had a significant and decisive influence over the ‘NKR’, that the two entities are highly integrated in virtually all important matters and that this situation persists to this day” and that “the ‘NKR’ and its administration survives by virtue of the military, political, financial and other support given to it by Armenia which, consequently, exercises effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories, including the district of Lachin”.

Question: Despite of this unequivocal judgment of the Court, the Armenian side still asserts that Armenia does not occupy the territories of Azerbaijan and that there is nothing in this judgment of the Court that would testify the opposite. Armenia also claimed that this judgment applies only to the protection of the rights pertaining to the European Convention on Human Rights. What would be your reaction to these statements?

Elmar Mammadyarov: It is unfortunate that Armenia, instead of drawing long overdue conclusions and embarking on a constructive path in the negotiations, sticks to its usual pattern of denial of undeniable with the sole purpose of misleading the international community and covering up its policy of occupation. Indeed, these allegations cannot be further from the truth. In order to refute these groundless speculations, suffice it to just read carefully the judgment, including in particular the paragraphs that I have just quoted.

The Court, referring to its case-law, observed that occupation within the meaning of international law exists when a State exercises actual authority over the territory or part of the territory of another State. In the Court’s view, the requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control. Consequently, having examined the evidence presented, the Court concluded that Armenia exercised and continues to exercise effective control over the Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied territories as a consequence of military occupation of these territories (paragraphs 96 and 168).

In contrast to what the Armenian officials assert, the Court arrived at an important conclusion that Nagorno-Karabakh, the district of Lachin and the other surrounding districts are part of Azerbaijan now under military occupation (paragraphs 146 and 173), that the international law of belligerent occupation/international humanitarian law applies in a given situation (paragraphs 96-97) and that Armenia is an occupier of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and exercises effective control over those territories as these terms are understood under international law. Thus, the fact of occupation and effective control of the territories of Azerbaijan by Armenia is undisputed. The Court simply confirmed what has long ago been a matter of general repute and public knowledge internationally.

Question: During the Court proceedings, as evidenced from the judgment, it appears that the Armenian side tried to justify the invasion, destruction and burning of Lachin and forcing of the Azerbaijani population to flee by “self-defense” and the “need to deliver food, medicine and other supplies into Nagorno-Karabakh”. The Armenian side claims that the Court took note, and I would like to quote them on that, “that in the situation of the ‘Azerbaijani aggression’ the ‘liberation’ of Lachin had a vital importance for the survival of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh”. Did the Court make such controversial statements?

Elmar Mammadyarov: Obviously, sense of impunity of Armenia encourages it to solidify its notorious track-record of falsifying and distorting the facts on the ground and the documents of international organisations. These allegations are nothing more than another piece of blatant lie. Armenia even does not shy away from brazenly attempting to manipulate the judgment of such a prominent institution as ECHR in broad daylight. There is no reference to “Azerbaijani aggression” or “liberation of Lachin” whatsoever in the judgment. I would simply invite all interested to consult the judgment of the Court which is available online. In fact, the Court rejected all the Armenian arguments that were designed to justify armed attacks and mass forcible expulsion of the civilians by ‘military necessity’

What is worrisome is the dangerous attempts of Armenia to justify its internationally wrongful acts by farfetched reasons. This is unacceptable and may seriously undermine the international efforts to protect universally recognized human rights norms guaranteed by the Convention and may compromise the Convention’s role as a constitutional instrument of European public order. The international community should be firm in rejecting such irresponsible attitude to the Convention and to ECHR.

Question: What was the assessment of the Court of the circumstances under which the Azerbaijani population of Lachin was forced to leave their homes?

Elmar Mammadyarov: Of particular importance is the determination by the Court, in paragraphs 19-20, that the district of Lachin, in particular the town of Lachin, was under military attack; that in mid-May 1992, Lachin was subjected to aerial bombardment, in the course of which many houses were destroyed; that the town was looted and burned; that Lachin and the surrounding villages were completely destroyed during the military conflict. The Court thus confirmed that the intension of the Armenian side was to inflict as much damage and sufferings as possible to the Azerbaijani population, forcing it to flee for their lives. We remember that the OSCE officials who visited the conflict area back in 1992-1993, condemned as unacceptable the Armenian side’s ‘scourged earth’ tactics, as they put it in their own words that very much resembled the notorious practice of ethnic cleansing.

One should also recall that military operation against the town of Khojaly in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, which was recorded in the history as the largest single day massacre of the Azerbaijani population in the course of the conflict, and attack on Lachin and subsequent invasion and occupation of the district of Kelbajar that were carried out with direct involvement of the armed forces of Armenia, elicited a series of well-known U.N. Security Council resolutions.

In this regard, one should recall that invasion and attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or military occupation however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, as well as bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State are the most egregious manifestations of aggression, as per 1974 consensus definition of the UN General Assembly. Undeniably, military attacks by the Armenian and Armenian-backed troops against Lachin and other towns and villages of Azerbaijan and aerial bombardments, as was confirmed by the Court, constitute armed attacks, triggering the right of self-defense of Azerbaijan in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and customary international law that solidifies once and for all.

Question: After the announcement of the judgment, the Armenian side made a number of contradictory statements. While the deputy minister of justice and authorized representative of Armenia in ECHR, Emil Babayan stated on 13 June that the Court’s ruling may have political and geopolitical implications and that any ruling will inevitably have its impact on the peaceful settlement of the conflict and the negotiations process, Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian in his recent comments asserted that this ruling of ECHR on the Chiragov case cannot have any impact on the negotiation process. What is, in your view, behind these conflicting messages coming from Yerevan and could you please elaborate on the potential impact of the judgment on the negotiation process?

Elmar Mammadyarov: Obviously, as was expected, the judgment created a shock wave throughout Armenia. The conflicting statements indicate that the Armenian side is worried about this unprecedented judgement of the Court and its inevitable far-reaching implications.

As I noted, this ruling by ECHR is significant in many respects. This is the first judgment of an authoritative Court that, while considering the merits of the case, provided impartial, third party analysis of the situation and legal assessment of the circumstances that led to the violation of fundamental human rights of Azerbaijani citizens guaranteed under the Convention.

In particular, the Court reaffirmed the right of displaced persons to return to their homes or places of habitual residence and recalled the relevant standards and principles of international humanitarian and human rights law relating to the legal and technical issues surrounding housing and property restitution. In this context, in the Court’s view, as reflected in paragraph 195 of the judgment, continued presence of Armenian and Armenian-backed troops and ceasefire breaches is the major obstacle for the Azerbaijanis to return to their homes in the current circumstances.

From day one Azerbaijan has been saying that continued illegal presence of the armed forces of Armenia in the occupied territories is the major threat to regional peace and the obstacle for the conflict resolution. The Court essentially concurred with the position of Azerbaijan that the withdrawal of Armenian troops is a sine qua non condition for the protection of the rights of the Azerbaijani citizens under the Convention and more broadly for the conflict resolution.

Furthermore, for us the return of the Azerbaijani population to their homes in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the surrounding territories that are now under occupation is one of the most important, and, I would say, existential issue. Armenia, on the contrary, always tried to prevent or condition the return of the Azerbaijani population to their homes. The Court made it clear that the ongoing negotiations within the OSCE Minsk Group do not provide a legal justification for the interference with the rights of the Azerbaijani internally displaced persons, including the proprietary rights that are still valid, and recalled Armenia’s obligations towards Azerbaijani citizens who had to flee during the conflict. According to the Court (paragraph 148 of the judgment), attempts of the Armenian side to extinguish the land rights of the Azerbaijani displaced persons who had fled the occupied territories cannot be considered legally valid. Having found the violation by Armenia of the rights of the Azerbaijani internally displaced persons, the Court concluded that Armenia had failed to discharge the burden of proving the availability to the applicants of a remedy capable of providing redress in respect of their Convention complaints and offering reasonable prospects of success. For the same reasons, the Court found that there was no available effective remedy in respect of the denial of access to the applicants’ possessions and homes in the district of Lachin.

The ruling of the Court reaffirmed that the right to return of the Azerbaijani population is undisputed and any solution will have to ensure effective exercise of this right.What should not be overlooked is that the said judgment of the Court’s Grand Chamber is final and legally binding. The Council of Europe has a well-established mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Court’s decisions. After the judgment of ECHR, the issue of protection of the rights of Azerbaijani population expelled from the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and the other surrounding territories shall remain on the radar screen of the Council of Europe and its structures.

Question: In the context of impact of this ruling on the negotiation process, what international responsibilities of Armenia are derived from this judgment?

Elmar Mammadyarov: The major conclusion from the Court’s judgment must be that due to its initial and continuing aggression against Azerbaijan and military occupation of its internationally recognized territory, expulsion of hundreds of thousands of the citizens of Azerbaijan from the occupied territory and the denial of their return to their homes and access to their property in those areas, the Republic of Armenia bears full international responsibility for the breaches of international law that have occurred and continue to occur.

A key element of State responsibility, and one particularly significant for present purposes, is the obligation to cease violations, to offer appropriate assurances and guarantees that they will not recur and to provide full reparation for injury. Consequently, Armenia is under the obligation, in the first place, to put an end to the occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan and to withdraw immediately, completely and unconditionally its armed forces from these territories. The implementation of that obligation, which would create necessary conditions for the return of Azerbaijani internally displaced persons, can in no way be considered or introduced as a compromise and used as a ‘bargaining chip’ in the conflict settlement process.

Question: What was the position of the Court on the illegal regime established by Armenia in the occupied territories?

Elmar Mammadyarov: During the Court proceedings, Armenia asserted that “the ‘NKR’ was a sovereign, independent state possessing all the characteristics of an independent state under international law”; that “it exercised control and jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh and the territories surrounding it”; that “the Republic of Armenia and the ‘NKR’ were different countries”, and that “the ‘NKR’, since its formation, had carried out its political, social and financial policies independently”.

The Court having considered the evidence presented, rejected these allegations and confirmed in paragraph 148 its conclusion from the admissibility decision of 14 December 2011, according to which “the ‘NKR’ is not recognized as a State under international law” and reaffirmed in paragraph 28 that “self-proclaimed independence of the “NKR” has not been recognised by any State or international organization”, thus reiterating the position of the international community that overwhelmingly rejected this entity and refused to recognise as legitimate the situation created through the use of force against the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, accompanied by the notorious practice of ethnic cleansing and other flagrant violations of the peremptory norms of international law. Moreover, the Court made it clear that the separatist regime is totally dependent on Armenia and “survives by virtue of the military, political, financial and other support given to it by Armenia” (para 186).

Question: What consequences for other States arise in light of the ruling of the Court?

Elmar Mammadyarov: The Court in its judgment made specific references to the relevant international humanitarian law instruments dealing with the military occupation and ruled that they apply in the present case. Serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law, and Armenia violated a number of such norms, give rise to additional consequences affecting not only Armenia, but also all other States, which include, inter alia, duties of States to cooperate in order to bring to an end such breaches by lawful means and not to recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.

It is an established principle of general international law that no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal, as reaffirmed by UN Security Council resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993) adopted with regard to the armed conflict in question. This understanding also applies to individual rights and freedoms, the violation of which can in no way produce the outcome that was designed by the perpetrator and that would serve for its benefit.

It is therefore critical that the international community insist on the implementation of the above-mentioned U.N. Security Council resolutions, to which the Court refers extensively in its judgment, that demand the withdrawal of the Armenian occupying forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and support the return of displaced persons to their places of origin in safety and dignity. It is obvious that the judgment of the Court should also guide the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs.

Question: The Armenian side claims that, in its address at the PACE Summer Session on 22 June, Mr. Igor Crnadak, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, allegedly confirmed that the conflict settlement process runs within the framework of the Minsk Group Co-chairs and has nothing to do with the mentioned judgments of ECHR. How would you comment this statement?

Elmar Mammadyarov: The Armenian side’s allegations are yet another falsification. The video-recording of Mr. Crnadak’s remarks is available online. In reality, in response to a question on the implementation of the Court’s decision, Mr. Crnadak said, and I quote him here, that “[t]he Committee of Ministers will commence the supervision of the execution of these judgments and certainly the Chairmanship will be very much focused on this and this will be important for us.” He also said that “[e]xecution of the Court judgment is the obligation under article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights and should go hand in hand with continuing efforts to establish an overall peace settlement”. The Armenian side is also inaccurately paraphrases Mr. Crnadak’s statement on the mediation efforts. Mr. Crnadak noted that “[m]ediation for the settlement of the conflict is the responsibility of the OSCE Minsk Group”. It is irresponsible, to say the least, to put words into the mouth of such high-ranking official of the Council of Europe.

Question: The Armenian side claims that there are certain formulations in the Sargsyan vs. Azerbaijan case that make Azerbaijan to refrain from reacting to this case. Is this the case and what is the reaction of Azerbaijan vis-à-vis this judgment of the Court?

Elmar Mammadyarov: First, we were never approached for the comment on this particular case. But, I will gladly satisfy the curiosity of our Armenian colleagues. As you may know, when Azerbaijani applicants lodged the case with ECHR on the violation of their rights under the Convention, as is always the case, Armenia followed the suit and made an Armenian national, certain Minas Sargsyan, to lodge with the Court a similar complaint in 2006 in an effort to mitigate the fall-out from the unprecedented consideration by ECHR of the violation of the fundamental rights of Azerbaijani IDPs on a massive scale as a result of occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan by Armenia.

In short, the case originated in an application by this applicant who alleged the denial of his right to return to the village of Gulistan in Goranboy district of Azerbaijan and to have access to his property there. I should mention in the outset that in paragraph 218 the Court specifically emphasized that the applicant was not deprived of his rights in respect of the house and land in Gulistan. It continued that the case does not involve a deprivation of property. Nor has it been claimed that the situation complained of was the result of any measures aimed at the control of the use of property.Now, I cannot emphasize enough that the position of Azerbaijan on the issue of IDPs and refugees has been consistent and has not changed. We are the most interested party in the early return of displaced people to their homes. Population displacement is a direct result of Armenia’s unlawful actions that the Court referred to in the Chiragov case. Indeed, it is Armenia who constantly introduces obstacles and unrealistic conditions to prevent by all means the return of displaced population, in particular to the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and to consolidate the results of ethnic cleansing carried out on a massive scale. We have consistently stated on numerous occasions that a number of measures, starting with the withdrawal of the Armenian forces, removal of UXOs, rehabilitation of the territories need to be taken to create conditions and to ensure safe and dignified return of the displaced population.

As far as the Sargsyan vs. Azerbaijan case is concerned, there are number of provisions in this judgment that the Armenian side simply downplays and fails to mention because they make them uncomfortable, to say the least. Thus, to the disappointment of Armenia, in paragraphs 215-216 the Court once again observed that the conflict is between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In paragraph 30, the Court noted that former “Shahumyan” district (Goranboy) “was… claimed by the ‘NKR’ as part of its territory”. Having considered the evidence presented, the Court in paragraphs 134 and 139 determined that this district, in which the village Gulistan is situated, is an internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan, thus rejecting Armenia’s claims. Furthermore, in paragraph 130, the Court reaffirmed that military occupation is temporary in nature and does not result in the transfer of sovereignty.

Question: The Armenian side, while commenting on the statement by Azerbaijan that the withdrawal of the armed forces of Armenia will ensure conditions conducive to the return of displaced people and that this issues should in no way be considered as a compromise, claimed that Azerbaijan by its ‘arbitrary’ and ‘selective interpretations’ once again opposes the proposals contained in the five statements of the leaders of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chair countries. The Armenian side also stated that the Co-chairs consider these elements as an integrated whole as any attempt to select some elements over others would make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution”. How would you comment this?

Elmar Mammadyarov: This is not the first time that the Armenian side distorts the essence of the negotiation process. The position of Azerbaijan on this issue has been repeated in the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan of 16 June in the wake of announcement by ECHR of its judgment on Chiragov case. We made it clear that Azerbaijan does not consider the withdrawal of Armenian forces and return of displaced population as a ‘compromise’. The attitude of the Armenian side that you refer to clearly shows who is creating obstacles for the realization of the fundamental rights of IDPs that the Court ordered to be protected.

Furthermore, there is indeed nothing in the proposals of the Co-Chairs that identify the withdrawal of the Armenian forces or return of Azerbaijani IDPs to their homes as a “compromise”. These are key steps without which there will be no settlement. Azerbaijan adheres to the phased approach in the conflict settlement, which is inevitable and has no alternative. The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are aware of this, and their mandate is based on this understanding.

The resolution of the conflict is possible only on the basis of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized borders. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has never been and will never be a subject of negotiations. Azerbaijan remains committed to the conflict settlement process based on this understanding.

The statements of the Co-Chairs cannot be a substitute for a comprehensive peace agreement based on international law that Azerbaijan has been proposing to start working on a while ago. Rather than seeking ways to prolong the status-quo of occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan, Armenia must reconsider its unconstructive stance that will be more and more difficult to stick to, especially in light of the recent judgment of ECHR. The sooner Armenia reconciles with the reality, the earlier the conflict will be resolved and the countries and peoples in the region will benefit from the prospects of cooperation and economic development.

Azerbaijan once again calls on the Armenian side, instead of wasting time and misleading its own people and the international community, to cease its policy of annexation and ethnic cleansing and to engage constructively in the conflict settlement process and comply with its international obligations.

Judgment on case "Chiragov and others v. Armenia" as triumph of justice

9 July 2015, 16:10 (GMT+05:00)

Baku, Azerbaijan, July 9

Trend:

British MPs regarded the judgment of Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case "Chiragov and others v. Armenia" as the triumph of justice.

Along with the approval of the violation of three special articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court also rejected the appeal of the government of Armenia, which claims that it has no effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding districts.

The Court also came to the conclusion that Armenia is responsible for this conflict as it was launched and waged by the regime members, who are currently in power.

British MP Stephen Hepburn in request to the European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS) said the Armenian government should benefit from the opportunities created by this judgment and admit its role in the occupation of Azerbaijani territories.

"Armenia should also start serious negotiations in order to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough after 20 years of stagnation,” the MP added.

"The conflict is occupation of Azerbaijan's sovereign territory by Armenia,” Baroness Zahida Manzoor said. “There is a need to demonstrate honest approach to negotiations for finding a peaceful solution to the conflict and finally make a progress."

On 16 June 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights announced its judgment (Merits) on the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia (Application no. 13216/05).The case originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court on 6 April 2005 by six Azerbaijani nationals forcibly displaced from the occupied Lachin district of Azerbaijan during the Armenian aggression.

Accordingly, the conclusion must be that due to its initial and continuing aggression against Azerbaijan and military occupation of its internationally recognized territory (Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding areas), expulsion of hundreds of thousands of the citizens of Azerbaijan from the occupied territory and the denial of their return to their homes and access to their property in those areas, the Republic of Armenia bears full international responsibility for the breaches of international law that have occurred and continue to occur, the statement said.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result of the ensuing war, in 1992 Armenian armed forces occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts.

The two countries signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia, France and the US are currently holding peace negotiations. Armenia has not yet implemented the UN Security Council's four resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions.

2015-07-07Interview by Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov on the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia

Question: On 16 June 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced its judgment (Merits) on the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia. At the outset, could you please provide some general background information on this case?

Elmar Mammadyarov: As you know, the case that you are referring to originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the ECHR on 6 April 2005 by six Azerbaijani nationals, who were forcibly expelled from the occupied Lachin district of Azerbaijan during the Armenian aggression. In essence, the applicants submitted to the Court that they were prevented from returning to their homes in the Lachin district and were thus unable to enjoy their properties located there due to continuing occupation of the district of Lachin by the armed forces of Armenia. They submitted that this amounted to continuing violations of their property rights, guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Convention that protects the right to respect for private and family life. They also submitted that there was a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that no effective remedy was available in respect of the above complaints. Finally, with a view to all complaints set out above, they complained that they were subjected to discrimination by virtue of ethnic origin and religious affiliation in violation of Article 14 of the Convention.

Question: What the general conclusion the Court has arrived at?

Elmar Mammadyarov: The Court ruled in favor of the applicants, recognizing continuing violations by Armenia of a number of their rights under the Convention. However, the importance of this ruling by an authoritative international court as this one goes beyond that.

Question: What is in view of the Republic of Azerbaijan the primary significance of this judgment by ECHR?

Elmar Mammadyarov: The judgment of the Court is indeed significant from a number of angles. First and foremost, ECHR effectively put an end to Armenia’s persistent denial of its responsibility for the unlawful occupation of and military presence in the territories of Azerbaijan. As is known, since the beginning of Armenian aggression and in the course of the Court’s proceedings in this case, in its usual attempts to mislead the international community and distort the root causes and essence of the conflict, the Republic of Armenia alleged that its jurisdiction did not extend to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories; that it did not and could not have effective control of or exercise any public power on those territories; that it had not participated in the military conflict in question; that it had not taken part in the seizure of the Lachin district and in any later military actions; and that it did not have any military presence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories.

The Court, having examined the evidence presented to it by the applicants and the Government of Azerbaijan rejected all these allegations submitted by Armenia.

Furthermore, in paragraphs 14-18 of the judgment, ECHR noted in particular, that the war had started with calls for the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia and specifically referred in that regard to a joint resolution on the “reunification” adopted in December 1989 by the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR and the Nagorno-Karabakh regional council. Essentially, the Court confirmed that Armenia’s territorial claims and its attempts aimed at annexation of a part of the territory of Azerbaijan were the root cause of this armed conflict and triggered a full-fledged war.

In paragraph 180, the Court also confirmed, and I am quoting the judgment here, that “the Republic of Armenia, through its military presence and the provision of military equipment and expertise, has been significantly involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from an early date”, that “[t]his military support has been – and continues to be – decisive for the conquest of and continued control over the territories in issue” and that “…the evidence … convincingly shows that the armed forces of Armenia and the ‘NKR’ are highly integrated”. Based on this and other evidence testifying to the political, financial and other dependence of the separatist entity from Armenia, the Court in paragraph 186 concluded that “… the Republic of Armenia, from the early days of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has had a significant and decisive influence over the ‘NKR’, that the two entities are highly integrated in virtually all important matters and that this situation persists to this day” and that “the ‘NKR’ and its administration survives by virtue of the military, political, financial and other support given to it by Armenia which, consequently, exercises effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories, including the district of Lachin”.

Before the First World War, there was no state named "Armenia"... The state named "Armenia" is given as a present by the British and Tsar Russians to use the Armenians as their puppets. The Armenians betrayed the weakened Ottoman Empire in which they were living. The Ottoman Empire was the state being invaded by enemy states and traitor populations. If Atatürk and the Core of the Turk Nation did not perform our Noble Turk War Independence and the earlier battles during the First World War like the Gallipoli Battle, then we Turks would have been killed all, but on the contrary, we defended our country, our safety and defeated the enemy states and their puppets who wanted to take our country by invading us.

The modern Russian and US puppets, namely the Armenians invaded territories of Azerbaijan. They performed the Khojaly Turk Genocide (in a couple of days), 613 civilians were killed, including 63 children, 106 women and 70 elderly people. The same genocides were performed by the Armenians during and before the First World War against the Muslim Turks and Kurds. The European Court of Human Rights, acknowledges the Khojaly Turk Genocide, and admits there was NO Genocide committed against the Armenians at 1915.

Differences should be made between aggressor-Armenia and victim-Azerbaijan21 July 2015, 14:25 (GMT+05:00)

By Sara Rajabova

Baku has responded to an accusation made by Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan who said, “the EU should not equalize the Armenian and Azerbaijani parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.”

Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hikmet Hajiyev said on July 21 that by calling for the use of different approaches to Azerbaijani-Armenian relations, the Armenian president indeed admitted to reality.

Hajiyev’s comments came in response to remarks by Sargsyan made during a joint press conference with President of the European Council Donald Tusk.

The official said undoubtedly, differences should be made between Armenia, which is an occupant and aggressor, and Azerbaijan, the state that has faced an occupation.

Hajiyev noted that in accordance with the UN Charter, a thorough legal assessment should be given to Armenia’s aggression against Azerbaijan without using double standards, and the syndrome of Armenia’s impunity should be ended.

Armenia occupied over 20 percent of Azerbaijan's internationally recognized territory, including Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent regions, after laying territorial claims against its South Caucasus neighbor, causing a lengthy war in the early 1990s. As a result of Armenia’s military aggression, over 20,000 Azerbaijanis were killed, 4,866 are still reported missing, almost 100,000 were injured, 50,000 were disabled, and over a million people became refugees and IDPs.

Armenia has not yet implemented the four U.N. Security Council resolutions on its pullout from Azerbaijan's territories.

“The decision on ‘Chiragov and Others vs. Armenia’ adopted by the European Court of Human Rights, determines Armenia’s legal responsibility as an occupant state within the context of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict,” Hajiyev said.

The ECHR reaffirmed Armenia’s responsibility in the occupation of Azerbaijani territories. The court ruled in favor of the applicants, recognizing Armenia’s continuing violations of their rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Hajiyev said Azerbaijan, which successfully conducted the First European Games, made a significant contribution to the popularization of the Olympic ideals and the “Olympic Truce” in all of Europe and South Caucasus.

He went on to say that Armenia, which continued to violate the ceasefire on the contact line on the eve of and during the First European Games, once again proved that it is nowhere near having Olympic ideals and civilizational values.

“This military junta and its modern sequel that came to power in Armenia through political terror and a coup in 1999, opened fire at peaceful demonstrators following the rigged presidential election in 2008, thereby showing the existence of a serious threat for Armenian citizens themselves,” Hajiyev said.

He further noted that by staging provocations on the contact line, the criminal regime of the military dictatorship in Armenia, which has led the country into a political, economic, and humanitarian disaster, in fact tries to divert attention from domestic discontent.

Hajiyev reiterated that the continuing occupation and aggression by Armenia against Azerbaijan is the main threat to peace and stability in the region and Armenia is responsible for that.

With the December 17, 2013 verdict on “Perincek vs Switzerland” by the European Courts of Human Rights, it is established that the events of 1915 cannot be proven to be genocide and cannot be compared to Jewish Holocaust. What’s more, silencing contra-genocide views is a direct violation of the human right to freedom of thought, expression, and speech–a stance contra-genocide scholars and writers were advocating all along.

With this remarkable milestone of a court verdict, the Turkish side of the story, long dismissed, ignored, and/or censored, will now finally be heard. Armenian agitation, propaganda, insurgency, deception, terrorism, treason, revolts, territorial demands, and the resulting Muslim, mostly Turkish, suffering and losses will be included in the debate for a balanced treatment of the Turkish-Armenian conflict. All this can be expected to lead to civilized dialogue and reasoned debate which, in turn, may finally produce closure based on the concepts of “shared responsibility,” “shared pain,” and “fair memory”.

Turko-phobia and Islamo-phobia in the pro-genocide views, by far the biggest challenges to reasoned debate on the Turkish-Armenian conflict, should now clearly be checked at the door prior to debating this issue. If that is done, then it will be seen that it was a truly complex human tragedy engulfing all the people of the era and area, not just Armenians. Furthermore, Armenian complicity in this tragedy, Armenian war crimes and hate crimes can no longer be swept under the rug (see, for example, http://www.ethocide.com for a photo of the well-trained, well-armed Armenian military academy cadets posing with their Russian-made Mosin weapons as far back as 1906, flying in the face of the rhetoric we are all so familiar with: “poor,starving, unarmed, loyal Armenians cut down by blood-thirsty Turks for no reason on one 1915 morning”. )

Today there are documents in the Russian state archives proving that the imperialists have plotted the "genocide" story. These documents bring to light the truth that Armenians have never been the majority in any region of the Anatolia, they have led a comfortable life and, they imposed atrocity on the Muslim people after provocations. . .

Commemorating the anniversary of the alleged Armenian genocide, certain Western people and Turkish intellectuals who surrendered the West started to put forward the Armenian allegations vigorously again. If we exclude the Turkish and Armenian parties, the most important witnesses of the incidents in the east part of Turkey in 1915-1923 are the Tsardom Russia and the Soviet Russia. For this reason the state archives of the Russian Federation include documents that will play a significant role in the revelation of the truth about the Armenian issue.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RUSSIAN ARCHIVES

Firstly, Tsardom Russia is inside the Armenian issue in the position of a party and as a nation who fought in the Caucasus Front recorded the before and after of the deportation in 1915 in details. Secondly, Turkey's Eastern Front's being the Trans-Caucasus Front of Russia indicates that the Soviet archives are the first hand sources. Thirdly, while the Tsardom archives possess certain parts of the Dashnag documents a power using the Dashnags, as a Soviet Republic the Soviet archives include specific parts of the Soviet Armenia. Today some documents in the Armenian state archives, which are closed to the researchers, can be reached through Russian state archives. Azerbaijani and Georgian sources can be added to these documents.

Consequently, the remarks of the German generals, British officers and American missioners, even when we put their imperialist aspirations aside, do not go beyond "personal" considerations, Russia witnessed the incidents as a state in both periods. When we add the sources of the Armenian and other Trans-Caucasian Republics, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Russian archives have the most important documents regarding the Armenian question.

The significance of the quality of the documents in these archives arises from the fact that all the documents are top-secret reports and letters signed by the high level officials of Tsardom Russia, Soviet State, Dashnag and Soviet Armenia. The documents in the archives regarding the Turkish-Armenian question while on one hand contain the confessions of the claimants or reveals the considerations of the powers which use the Armenian Question against Turkey and on the other hand are the effective and valid evidences at the international level due to the fact that it reflects the comments of a third party such as Soviet Russia. Especially the reports and internal correspondence include the sincere evaluation of the state officials directed towards finding the truth.

The common feature of the documents in the Russian state archives relating to content is that they verify Turkey's views and reveals that the Armenian genocide is untrue beyond doubt. As a result of the researches we have been conducting in the Russian state archives of the Tsardom Russia and the state archives of the Soviet era on the Armenian Question, I can summarize the basic conclusion as follows:

*These documents proved that the Armenian gangs followed a systematic massacre policy against the Turks and Azerbaijani Turks and Kurds in Trans-Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and Adana and Mara? regions called Cilicia in 1915-1920.

*The ethnic cleansing policy of the Armenian gangs in and after the World War I caused war and mutual massacres between the Armenian gangs and the Turkish state and the Muslim people (Turks and Kurds together). Thus both sides resorted to violence against each other.

*Those who are responsible for the cutting of the throat struggle between the Armenians and Muslims are the Western imperialists and the Tsardom Russia. In a desire to divide and share the Ottoman State, great powers provoked the fanatic Armenian organisations and incited them to fight. The Ottoman State, government of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and the Muslim community took warfare measures in this case and conducted a justifiable struggle by oppressing the revolting Armenian gangs and thus defended its country.

THE ARCHIVES THAT INCLUDE THE DOCUMENTS

These documents are especially in these archives: Military archives and the foreign ministry archives relating to the Tsardom period; Central Party Archive of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the foreign ministry archive of the Soviet era, Red Army Archive relating to the Soviet era and the State Archive of the Russian Federation for both periods.

After these outline information, let's dwell upon the sorts of the documents about the Armenian question that are accessible in the Tsardom and Soviet archives respectively

TSARDOM ARCHIVES

In the Tsardom archives, the documents about the Armenian question goes back especially to the late 19th Century and extends to 1919 and includes as well as the period before that date. While the Tsardom rule collapsed completely by the October Revolution in 1917, survival of the White Armies, Armchair Government and the Central Headquarters of the Caucasus Front in Tbilisi for a while expanded the time period of the Tsardom archives.

We can classify the documents in these archives as follows:

1. The living standards of the Armenians in the Ottoman State: Tsardom archive documents refute in a clear way the arguments of the Armenian nationalists and the nationalist-chauvinist historians about the life conditions of the Armenians in the Ottoman State. According to these documents the Armenians has lived in very good conditions in Turkey and has been supported and protected by especially the Ottoman State until the intervention of the imperialist states and especially until the Berlin Conference (1878). The correspondence of the Tsardom officials show that the living standards of the Ottoman Armenians have been better compared to the Armenians in Russia. Therefore the Armenians have fled the Tsardom Russia and taken shelter in the Ottoman State. Moreover, the Armenian peasants have always been wealthier than the Muslims in certain places. In fact, the Armenians have had significant positions in trade and craft. In addition, the communities of the Ottoman State, especially Turks, Kurds and Armenians have lived in complete harmony.

The information within this framework proves that the Armenian question was made up artificially to justify the occupation of Turkey by the West and the Tsardom Russia. In an effort to hide the imperialist aggression, a public opinion was created for the sake of the Armenians' alleged poor living conditions.

2. Birth of the Armenian Nationalism and its Characteristics: Tsardom documents show that the Armenian nationalism has developed in parallel with the projects of the West and Tsardom Russia to use Armenia against Turkey especially in the 19th Century. Especially the Armenian publications and documents in the archives about that period put forward obviously the cooperative, chauvinistic and aggressive origins of the Armenian nationalism. The Armenian intellectuals in the Caucasus have already been dreaming of founding an independent Armenia "in cooperation with" the imperialist states and they have tried to impose their ideals on the Armenians in Turkey by force.

3. Eastern Europe's Role in the Development of the Armenian Question: Russia and Europe who are in competition in sharing the East were also competing against each other on the use of the Armenians. The reports written by the Russian officials reveal particularly the British provocations about the Armenian Issue. According to the officials it is aimed at straining the relations between Russia and Turkey and on the other hand sharing the Ottoman state by supporting the centrifugal forces.

4. Tasks Assigned to the Armenians during World War I: It is understood from the Dashnag's correspondence and talks with the officials of the Tsardom Russia that the Armenians have been assigned two missions within the framework of the plans to occupy Turkey. The Armenians would launch an uprising in the rear front and weaken the Turkish army. This is the first assignment. The second assignment is to split the line of defence of the Turkish army and facilitate the Russian occupation by means of the Armenian volunteer units. In addition, there are numerous reports written by the Russian officials in this regard. All these plans have been carried out under the command and control of the Western States and Tsardom Russia.

5. The Ottoman Armenian Masses were dragged into imperialist plans. The Turkish Armenians played an active role in the performance of this duty. It was not the matter of several Dashnag terrorists. Broad Armenian groups participated in forming the volunteering units and triggering the rebellions. The archives are full of Armenian's applications to the Russian officials in order join the Tsardom armies to fight in the voluntary units against the Turks. The names of thousands of Armenian citizens ranging from ordinary peasants subordinate to the Turkish subjects, university students and doctors can be seen in the archives. These documents are significant from the point of view of showing the dimension of the threat.

6. Massacre and Pillage Policy of the Armenian voluntary units. According to the hundreds of reports prepared by the Tsardom generals and officers and the records and verdicts of the Tsardom military courts, Armenian voluntary units in the occupied regions during The First World War massacred the Muslim people and pillaged their property. To these documents, this massacre and pillage policy was performed systematically. Even the Russian commanders who used the Armenian gangs struck with terror due to this atrocity. Many Armenian officers and soldiers were tried in military courts and were executed. It is highly essential that these massacres have started before deportation.

7. "Armenia without Armenians" project of the Tsardom Russia: The internal correspondence of the Tsardom officials prove the Russian plans to make the Armenians organize an attack on the Turks and settle the Don Kazakhs in the region after the occupation. Tsardom officials defined this plan as the "Armenia without Armenians."

SOVIET ARCHIVES

The documents in the Soviet archives go back to the years after 1917 and include the Soviet officials' comments about the past events.

1. Armenian Question is the Imperialism Question: The major leaders of the Soviet government such as Lenin and Stalin, Armenian Bolshevik theorists have made many explanations about the foundations of the Armenian question. According to these comments that that have been reflected the correspondence and reports, etc. the Armenian Question has been used as a means by the imperialist states in sharing Turkey. Turkey has defended its country against division and has conducted a justified struggle.

2. The role and ethnic cleansing policy of Dashnag Armenia: Soviet leaders established that Dashnag Armenia built a wall between the revolutionist Turkey and Soviet Russia and became the subcontractor of imperialism in the region after the World War I. Dashnag Armenia played the role of a base in the West's realisation of the plans in the East.

Soviet documents prove the ethnic cleansing policy followed by the Dashnags in the territories that is called Armenia today. Dashnag government removed a considerable part of the Muslim population for "merely" the sake of establishing a national state. Moreover, the Muslim population were put to the sword systematically under the auspices of France in Adana, Mara? region that is called Cilicia.

3. Turkish-Soviet alliance and Elimination of the Dashnag Armenia: As it was clearly proven by the Soviet archive documents, Dashnag government was disintegrated by the cooperative efforts of the Turkish armies and the Red Army, and Soviet government was established. The operation of the Turkish Army on Armenia, which is called genocide today, was supported by the Soviet leadership and was assessed as a progressive operation. Turkey's operation was the part of the defence of the country.

This is why the Armenian nationalists attack on the Soviet leadership as Talat and Enver Pashas did. Russian Armenian Union collected the documents on this subject in its book titled "Guardians and Accessories of the Armenian Genocide" and considered Lenin and Stalin to be the accomplices of he Armenian Genocide. What must be underlined here is the condemnation of Russia by the Armenians via the Soviet State.

4. Dashnag's Nazi-Guided Policy in the World War II: In the World War II, Dashnags assumed the role that they had assumed in the World War I but this time side by side with the Hitler Germany. Dashnags were involved in a new crime against the regional people by establishing voluntary units for fascist German armies

In addition, both Tsardom and Soviet documents prove that the Muslim population has been much more than that of the Armenians' before deportation.

“Genocide,” is a very specific and narrowly defined legal concept requiring a high threshold of proof.

“Genocide,” a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group, came into general usage only after World War II, when the full extent of the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime against the Jews of Europe during that conflict became known. In 1948, the United Nations declared genocide to be an international crime; the term would later be applied to the horrific acts of violence committed during conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and in the African country of Rwanda in the 1990s. An international treaty signed by some 120 countries in 1998 established the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes of genocide.

The recent decision by European Court of Human Rights confirms that the Armenian Slander case is full with lies, the issue revolves around is by law not a legal matter, and there it IS NOT a genocide.